Sorry for disappearing from this thread, but I was away. I want to
draw attention to something in this discussion, however.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 03:25:35AM -0400, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
>
> I will completely agree with you that this is where the problem *should*
> be solved. However, we are a
Le 2 avr. 2010 à 07:54, Igor Gashinsky a écrit :
> I, for one, get pretty damn pissed when my vendors roll out new features
> (most of which I could care less about) while breaking existing things
> that I use -- I tend to not deploy those things into production.
That's precisely the reason wh
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Mark Andrews wrote:
:: How many of those clients are actually using ISP's nameservers when
:: the breakage occurs?
I'll be able to answer that "somewhat" when we have our data collected.
The "somewhat" is because I don't know of a way to identify if the user's
request goes t
In message , Igor G
ashinsky writes:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jason Livingood wrote:
>
> :: Igor - How do you define broken? And what technical issues do you believe
> :: underlie this condition?
>
> This is actually very subjective, and I suspect would differ from provider
> to provider, so, th
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jason Livingood wrote:
:: Igor - How do you define broken? And what technical issues do you believe
:: underlie this condition?
This is actually very subjective, and I suspect would differ from provider
to provider, so, these are *my* own shot at this definition, not my
em
were it not Apr 1, I would think that was a typo. Strangely enough, I
actually worked on a protocol translator for LU6.2 devices on a BX.25
(!) network, long ago in a galaxy far away...
I agree with your point, the medium in this case is not the
message...apologies to Prof. McLuhan.
On 4/
> -Original Message-
> From: John Jason Brzozowski
> [mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:23 PM
> To: Dan Wing; Igor Gashinsky
> Cc: Andrew Sullivan; dnsop@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] FYI: DNSOPS presentation
>
&g
I've not seen much attempt yet to spell all this out, so I'll attempt to
solicit some responses...
> It seems that have the cart before the horse, so to speak. IMHO, we need to
> do the following (and there's no reason they cannot occur rapidly):
>
> 1 - Develop a clear problem statement that
Igor,
I have a feeling that the energy spent on defending *now* your proposed
"solution" would better be spent providing asap details on the problem you are
trying to solve, i.e. explaining which OS does what exactly, in which
circumstances, to break what?
Le 31 mars 2010 à 23:19, Igor Gashin
Le 31 mars 2010 à 22:55, Dan Wing a écrit :
> But Remi's point is that those same systems (running Windows XP
> and IE6) using 6rd will be denied the ability to access content
> via IPv6. Which removes an incentive for ISPs to add 6rd (and
> offload the NAT44 they may soon have to install).
If
Le 1 avr. 2010 à 00:11, Jason Livingood a écrit :
>> ...
>> This to me seems like a "cure" worse than the disease.
>
> That is also a concern I share.
>
> It seems that have the cart before the horse, so to speak. IMHO, we need to
> do the following (and there's no reason they cannot occur rap
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:23:08AM -0400, John Jason Brzozowski wrote:
Having advanced users (people like us) manually
configure their DNS servers to point to HE (for example) will pertain to a
small percentage of the overall Internet using population that must start
using IPv6 without special co
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 02:12:43PM -0700, Dan Wing wrote:
There are two categories of ISP
subscribers:
1. If subscriber is provisioned for IPv6, they are pointed at
the ISP's DNS server which responds to normally --
2. If subscriber is NOT provisioned for IPv6, they are
po
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:26:53PM -0700, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>
> > But Remi's point is that those same systems (running Windows XP
> > and IE6) using 6rd will be denied the ability to access content
> > via IPv6. Which removes an incentiv
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
> But Remi's point is that those same systems (running Windows XP
> and IE6) using 6rd will be denied the ability to access content
> via IPv6. Which removes an incentive for ISPs to add 6rd (and
> offload the NAT44 they may soon have to install).
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 01:46:07PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
>>
>> Why is there a need to wean people off IPv4?
>
> Because we're about to run out of v4 addresses, according to the
> people in charge of giving them out.
all that means is
On 3/31/10 5:12 PM, "Dan Wing" wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: John Jason Brzozowski
>> [mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:57 PM
>> To: Igor Gashinsky; Dan Wing
>> Cc: Andrew Sullivan; dnso
On 3/31/10 4:55 PM, "Dan Wing" wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
>>
>> :: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
>> :: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
>> :: is shipped by Microsoft.
>>
>> Why do you say that? As far as I know, IE6
>> It would probably cost be far more money to roll out this separate DNS
>> server view, have folks monitor it and troubleshoot it, test
>> and certify it in the lab, etc. than just calling and fixing
>> the "broken" users.
>
> There is a way for the ISP to detect IPv6-broken users? (Who can
>
> >> :: It seems solvably operationally, by asking ISPs to point their
> >> :: IPv4-only subscribers at an ISP-operated DNS server which
> >> :: purposefully breaks responses (returns empty answer), and
> >> :: to point their dual-stack subscribers at an ISP-operated DNS
> >> :: server which f
> On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
>>
>> You are absolutely right -- it's not a DNS problem, it *is* a host
>> behavior problem. The issue is that it takes *years* to fix a host
>> behavior problem, and we need to engineer and deploy a fix much sooner
>> then that (hopefully abo
>> :: It seems solvably operationally, by asking ISPs to point their
>> :: IPv4-only subscribers at an ISP-operated DNS server which
>> :: purposefully breaks responses (returns empty answer), and
>> :: to point their dual-stack subscribers at an ISP-operated DNS
>> :: server which functions
> -Original Message-
> From: Igor Gashinsky [mailto:i...@gashinsky.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:19 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: dnsop@ietf.org; 'Andrew Sullivan'
> Subject: RE: [DNSOP] FYI: DNSOPS presentation
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wi
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: >
:: > :: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
:: > :: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
:: > :: is shipped by Microsoft.
:: >
:: > Why do you say that? As far as
> -Original Message-
> From: John Jason Brzozowski
> [mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:57 PM
> To: Igor Gashinsky; Dan Wing
> Cc: Andrew Sullivan; dnsop@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] FYI: DNSOPS presentation
>
>
On 3/31/10 4:37 PM, "Igor Gashinsky" wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
>
> :: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
> :: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
> :: is shipped by Microsoft.
[jjmb] this is not what the Free people have ind
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
>
> :: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
> :: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
> :: is shipped by Microsoft.
>
> Why do you say that? As far as I know, IE6 is an ipv6-capable
> browser,
> as long as i
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
:: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
:: is shipped by Microsoft.
Why do you say that? As far as I know, IE6 is an ipv6-capable browser,
as long as it's going to FQDN's
A far better "solution" would be to instead segregate with different DNS server
IPs.
ISPs already have multiple DNS resolvers (eg, "no wildcarding" resolvers,
DNSSEC test resolvers). And the ISP knows if its giving out a v6 address or
not for a client and routing IPv6 for that client.
And e
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
::
:: On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: >
:: > You are absolutely right -- it's not a DNS problem, it *is* a host
:: > behavior problem. The issue is that it takes *years* to fix a host
:: > behavior problem, and we need to engin
> :: Solve it in the browser, which is well-placed to know if there
> :: really is connectivity and can even determine if IPv6 (or IPv4)
> :: is temporarily broken or abnormally slow:
> ::
> :: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-http-new-tech-01
> :: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko
On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:42 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 3:28 -0400 3/31/10, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
>
>> You are absolutely right -- it's not a DNS problem, it *is* a host
>> behavior problem. The issue is that it takes *years* to fix a host
>> behavior problem, and we need to engineer and deploy a
At 3:28 -0400 3/31/10, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
You are absolutely right -- it's not a DNS problem, it *is* a host
behavior problem. The issue is that it takes *years* to fix a host
behavior problem, and we need to engineer and deploy a fix much sooner
then that (hopefully about a year before the v
On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
>
> You are absolutely right -- it's not a DNS problem, it *is* a host
> behavior problem. The issue is that it takes *years* to fix a host
> behavior problem, and we need to engineer and deploy a fix much sooner
> then that (hopefully about
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 03:28:24AM -0400, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
You are absolutely right -- it's not a DNS problem, it *is* a host
behavior problem. The issue is that it takes *years* to fix a host
behavior problem, and we need to engineer and deploy a fix much sooner
then that (hopefully about a
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Pekka Savola wrote:
:: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: > So, the question now is, what can be done? By no means do I think that
:: > lying based on transport is a good idea, however, I simply don't have a
:: > better one, and, this is a real problem, which is del
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Edward Lewis wrote:
:: >Dual-stack and IPv6-only installations are in some cases broken today.
:: >It's unrealistic to say, "Let them feel the pain & they'll upgrade,"
:: >because the people this affects are unlikely to be able to understand
:: >what is happening to them. As
:: Solve it in the browser, which is well-placed to know if there
:: really is connectivity and can even determine if IPv6 (or IPv4)
:: is temporarily broken or abnormally slow:
::
:: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-http-new-tech-01
:: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko-tran-announ
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
So, the question now is, what can be done? By no means do I think that lying
based on transport is a good idea, however, I simply don't have a better one,
and, this is a real problem, which is delaying ipv6 deployment for a number
of people. So, if any
At 16:45 -0400 3/30/10, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I thought I saw you in the DNSOP meeting in Anaheim where this was
outlined?
Doesn't mean I was paying attention. Didn't you notice that there
were three light bulbs out in the ceiling. (No, just joking.)
Anyway, the problem right now is not
> -Original Message-
> From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of Igor Gashinsky
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:11 PM
> To: Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] FYI: DNSOPS presentation
>
> On Tue,
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:15:39AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
:: Rather than having the DNS magically lie to people, why not use the
:: DNS detection mechanism as an indicator that a customer has a broken
:: v6 implementation. Then you can turn off _that customer's_ IPv6
:: connectivity, cont
On Mar 30, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Not necessarily an assumption. The protagonist (the client) knows
> it's network-layer experience (v4 vs. v6) in getting through to the
> server, more so than the DNS. The DNS is not the place to inject
> "policy" to influence the protagonist'
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 03:44:43PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
> If IPv4 can get through faster than IPv6, why not continue to use it?
> When IPv6 is the only way through, use IPv6. When IPv6 is faster,
> again, use it.
>
> Let the end host decide.
I thought I saw you in the DNSOP meeting in
On Mar 30, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Because it recently dawned on me that biasing in favor of v6 is the
> root of the evil, not the run out of v4.
Biasing stupidly is the root of all evil. Stuart Cheshire explained how to
make this work, and it's going to be a standard feature i
At 15:53 -0400 3/30/10, John Schnizlein wrote:
Just a point of clarification before the list moderator shuts down this
off-topic thread..
To bring this back to on-topic for DNS operations...
Ed's unstated assumption is that the condition being considered is
communication between two hosts tha
Just a point of clarification before the list moderator shuts down
this off-topic thread..
Ed's unstated assumption is that the condition being considered is
communication between two hosts that are both dual-stack. It is not
that he fails to understand that hosts that are now IPv4-only sh
At 14:25 -0400 3/30/10, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
There's something else we ought to be able to do.
And that's what I am calling into question.
It seems to me- adding a bias essentially just puts IPv4 at more of a
disadvantage without any gain.
If IPv4 can get through faster than IPv6, why no
At 11:25 -0700 3/30/10, Ted Lemon wrote:
You want to use IPv6 because:
- it has significant new features that will make things like VoIP work
better for you
Fine, that's a reason for v6 to come along. But why should I prefer
to run SSH over v6 rather than v4?
- if you can't use IPv6, a
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 02:15:49PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> I've heard that before. The "run out" does not mean an end to the IPv4
> network. There will still be 4 billion IPv4 network addresses (yes, a
> fraction are unusable) in working order plus all the NATted pools out
> there. The
On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Why should I want to use IPv6 if IPv4 is still working for me? I'm
> not saying "you'll get my IPv4 when it pry it from my cold, dead
> hands" - it's simply a question of "why try to bias my choice towards
> IPv6?" To keep this from an IPv6 r
At 13:58 -0400 3/30/10, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Because we're about to run out of v4 addresses, according to the
people in charge of giving them out.
I've heard that before. The "run out" does not mean an end to the
IPv4 network. There will still be 4 billion IPv4 network addresses
(yes, a
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 01:46:07PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> Why is there a need to wean people off IPv4?
Because we're about to run out of v4 addresses, according to the
people in charge of giving them out.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
(Maybe this is better on v6ops, but I'm not on that list and I don't
really like to cross-post.)
And this while we desperately need to wean people off IPv4 and onto IPv6.
Right there is where I think the problem is - "trying wean people off".
First, the network layer does not offer features
On Mar 30, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I am not among those who think that the number of clients involved
> with this is "insignificant". I know that something people sometimes
> hear, but the abolute number of people involved does make this a real
> problem. I just don't think th
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 09:04:39AM -0700, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
> His linux host would do an A and an query and, until the
> query timed out, delay creating connections eg, through SSH, web
> browsing, etc. An amazingly painful experience for him until he
> diagnosed it.
But the answer
On Mar 30, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Sorry for crossposting.
>
>
> This proposal is the opposite with the principle how the DNS is developed a
> while ago. The DNS is a highly distributed, hierarchical, autonomous,
> reliable database with very useful extensions.
Dear All,
Sorry for crossposting.
This proposal is the opposite with the principle how the DNS is developed
a while ago. The DNS is a highly distributed, hierarchical, autonomous,
reliable database with very useful extensions. This modification is
proposing lying about the existence of the r
58 matches
Mail list logo
